<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Agree Bill and I like Joy's "question
as to whether they have given any consideration to any trends or new
issues
beyond the new gTLDs that might arise in the next 3-5 years" - of
course they could cop out and say "well what do you think......" but
it is perhaps worth asking it.<br>
<br>
Matthew<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/16/2015 9:10 PM, Joy Liddicoat
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:14dfdfef4b0.2752.b9804b822011d28be473bf9c3189d738@liddicoatlaw.co.nz"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div style="color: black;">
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">Thanks Bill - one
note below
for you<br>
Joy<br>
</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">On 17 June 2015
2:20:13 am
William Drake <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wjdrake@GMAIL.COM"><wjdrake@GMAIL.COM></a> wrote:</p>
<p style="margin: 0 0 1em 0; color: black;">> Hi<br>
><br>
> Vinciane’s message prompted me to go back and reread the
thread in
which we discussed the topics. Based on prior experience, I’m
inclined to think five questions is more than we’re going to
be able to
have meaningful exchanges on, so it might be worth paring
things down; and
that broadly framed questions can lead to uninspired responses
and
discussions. <br>
> Q 1 on naming policy programs outside of the new gTLD
program: I was
with those who thought this is a bit broad, so I’m not
surprised by the
Board’s request for clarification. Would like to hear from
those who
advocated it.<br>
JL:Iadvocated for this one - it is really a very simple
question and the
Board's difficulty in understanding it may point more to
checking that it
is not somehow a trick question, which it isn't... It is
simply a question
as to whether they have given any considertaion to any trends
or new issues
beyond the new gTLDs that might arise in the next 3-5 years.
The obvious
answer is that if ICANN is bottom up community policy then it
will be the
community that takes new issues to the Board. This question is
simply
asking if the Board itself has been considering any <br>
> Q2 on IANA: this will be discussed all week and in the
Public Forum,
so do we need it again here?<br>
> Q3 on fiduciary: again, would like to hear from the
advocates what
we’re looking for here.<br>
> Q4 on Public Interest Commitments: this seems like it
offers multiple
angles for conversation, so I’d suggest it be the lead
question and main
focus. The Board didn’t ask for clarification of this one.<br>
> Q5 on auction proceeds: we will have discussed this the
day prior in
the High Interest Topic session but it’ll have been
SOACSGCRALO chairs on
stage, so seeking the Board’s reactions would be timely. The
Board didn’t
ask for clarification of this one.<br>
> So my suggestion would be to lead with 4, then do 5, and
then maybe 3
or 1 in whatever time is left…?<br>
><br>
> Best<br>
><br>
> Bill<br>
><br>
> > On Jun 16, 2015, at 2:59 AM, Rafik Dammak
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com"><rafik.dammak@gmail.com></a> wrote:<br>
> > <br>
> > Hi everyone,<br>
> > <br>
> > I got those from board asking for clarification
about the topics
we proposed:<br>
> > Does the Board have any plans for
new/revised/additional naming
policy programs outside of the new gTLD program? —> could
you be more specific? Are you thinking of/worrying about
anything in
particular? <br>
> > Does the Board feel that the IANA functions should
remain within
ICANN in perpetuity, if so should the community not have the
right to
periodically review the performance of IANA and, if required,
seek bids
from alternate providers? —> the feeling is that the dialog
on this was
clear but the Board is of course willing to discuss further
should you feel
the need to – you might want to provide additional
info/questions?<br>
> > When performing its work, what situations does the
Board feel it
is exercising its fiduciary responsibility, and does the Board
take into
account the community input when making such decisions; has
the board
received formal guidance on the boundaries of their fiduciary
responsibility with regard to the IANA transition? —> Could
you
elaborate a bit more? What are you concerned about exactly?<br>
> > <br>
> > please those who proposed those topics, can you
elaborate and
clarify more.<br>
> > <br>
> > On other hand, the board planned those topics to be
discussed
Thursday's public forum:<br>
> > <br>
> > CEO Succession<br>
> > New gTLD's<br>
> > USG Transition<br>
> > <br>
> > Best,<br>
> > <br>
> > Rafik<br>
> > <br>
> > 2015-06-14 9:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak
<<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com"><mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com></a>>:<br>
> > Hi everyone,<br>
> > <br>
> > few weeks ago we discussed about topics we would
like to ask
ICANN board members about, during our NCSG-Board 1 hour
session. We got
those topic below and we got several interventions in the
list.<br>
> > <br>
> > since, we shared the topics earlier with the board,
we don't
necessarily need introduction for each during the session.
However, we
should prepare for the meeting and develop more questions and
interventions. any NCSG member attending physically or
remotely the
session can intervene.<br>
> > <br>
> > Please check the topics and share your thoughts, you
can also ask
questions if you would to get some clarifications to
understand the
background and the issues.<br>
> > <br>
> > Does the board have any plans for
new/revised/additional naming
policy pr programs outside of the new gTLD program?<br>
> > Does the board feel that the IANA functions should
remain within
ICANN in perpetuity, if so should the community not have the
right to
periodically review the performance of the IANA and if
required seek bids
rom alternate providers?<br>
> > When performing its work, what situations does the
board feel it
it exercising its fiduciary responsibility, and does the board
take into
account the community input when making such decisions., has
the board
received formal guidance on the boundaries if their fiduciary
responsibility with regards to the IANA transition?<br>
> > On the topic of ‘Public Interest Commitments’ how
does the board
feel that PICs interact with existing bottom up policy making
at ICANN.
Does the board feel that there may be a conflict between PICS
and
multistakeholder policy development. How does the board plan
to enforce
PICs, specifically in the case where there may not be
community agreement
over the actions contained in the PIC?When will the community
be given the
opportunity to review the PICs process in a bottom up manner?<br>
> > On the topic of gTLD auction proceeds, does the
board plan to
accept the community suggestions via the CCWG current being
chartered or
will the board unilaterally decide the uses for the
sequestered funds? In
the case of a unilateral decision what will be the boards
basis for the
decision, and what inputs will the board be soliciting apart
from the CCWG
initiated by the GNSO<br>
> > Best Regards,<br>
> > <br>
> > Rafik Dammak <br>
> > <br>
> > NCSG Chair<br>
> > <br>
><br>
><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987</pre>
</body>
</html>